ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Family Court

COURT FILE NO.: C1632/08-05
DATE: December 31, 2015

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Jill Scrutton-Fulford for the Society

Applicant

• and -

A.W. (Mother)
K.C. (Father)
L.F. (Grandmother)
M.W. (Grandfather)

Respondents

• and -

On Her own
Not appearing
On Her own (Attending by Telephone)
Not Appearing

Foster Parents (Entitled to Notice)

Brenda Barr for the foster parents

HEARD: August 26, 2015

McSORLEY J.

Introduction:

[1] The matter before the court involved a motion for summary judgment brought by the applicant society in a status review application regarding two children, A.R.W., born 2007 and A.C.W., born 2008 and in a protection application concerning H.M.W. (called M.), born 2010. In its motion, the society sought an order that the statutory findings regarding H.M.W. be confirmed and that she be found in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2) (b) and (b-i) and for an order that all three children be made wards of the Crown and placed in the care of the applicant society.

Background:

[2] A.W. and K.C. are the biological parents of the children. The maternal grandmother is L.F., who resides in Nova Scotia and the maternal grandfather is M.W., who resides in London, Ontario.

[3] The society became involved with the family in 2008. A protection application was commenced seeking a finding of protection and an order for society wardship of A.R.W. and A.C.W. The first appearance on the application was October 21 2008. An interim order was granted placing the children in the care and custody of the society.

[4] On March 2, 2009, A.R.W. and A.C.W. were found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2) (b-i) of the CFSA and an order was granted making them wards of the society for a period of three months. The parents were given reasonable access, supervised in the discretion of the society. A statement of agreed facts was filed on March 2, 2009 in support of the order.

[5] According to the statement of agreed facts, the society sent alerts to the area hospitals to ensure follow up after A.R.W.’s birth because there had been reports of domestic violence in the parents’ relationship. The society became actively involved with the parents following the birth of A.R.W. in July 2007. At that time the parents denied any violence in their relationship. In addition, at the time of A.R.W.’s birth, the mother tested positive for marijuana and had tested positive during a prenatal check a month before the birth. The mother reported that she had used marijuana during her pregnancy to help with morning sickness but did not intend to continue using it because she was breastfeeding the child. The parents agreed to work voluntarily with the society and accepted the services of the Public Health Nurse (PHN) as well. Over time the family stopped engaging in services and their involvement with the PHN and the home visitor service was terminated. The society worker also had difficulty meeting with the family consistently because the parents frequently cancelled and/or rescheduled appointments.

[6] The society continued to have concerns about domestic violence. On September 6, 2007, the society worker and Public Health Nurse attended at the residence for a planning meeting. The police were at the home when they arrived. The police reported that they had attended the home due to a dispute between the parents. The parents denied any physical violence and reported only a verbal dispute. A.R.W. was present in another room at the time of the incident. No charges were laid because both parents denied any physical violence.

[7] On September 27, 2007, police reported to the society that the parents had been involved in another domestic dispute involving pushing, biting and scratching. A.R.W. was present at the time of the incident. No charges were laid because the police determined that the fight was consensual. The parents minimized the concerns and blamed each other for the conflict. The father reported that he was involved with Changing Ways, but no independent information was provided regarding his attendance or completion of the program. A safety plan was developed with the parents, that if they were engaged in conflict, A.W. would take A.R.W. and go to her father’s home for a period of time until the situation settled.

[8] Police were involved with the family again in January 2008 after a community complaint was received indicating that the parents were again fighting and had been shaking the infant A.R.W. The parents denied the information and the concerns were not confirmed.

[9] In April 2008, police received more community complaints about the parents yelling and A.R.W. crying. At this point the mother was again pregnant and was using marijuana again to address her morning sickness.

[10] On May 15, 2008 the society received another community complaint indicating that the parents were fighting almost daily and throwing things at each other. The police had been to the parents’ residence that morning, but again the parents denied that there had been an incident in the home on that date. However, the home was found to be in complete disarray, with drywall having been ripped down at the front entrance. Following this incident, the parents moved twice and did not notify the society as to their location.

[11] The society next heard from the parents in July 2008 when the mother called and advised that she no longer wanted services from the society and wanted her file closed. However, since the mother was due to give birth to her second child, the society wanted to ensure the family was connected to services that they might need. As such, the mother agreed that the file could remain open. Despite this agreement, all scheduled appointments over the next several weeks were cancelled by the parents.

[12] On August 31, 2008, the hospital contacted the society to advise that the mother had delivered her second child. The mother was observed to have bruises on her arms and had acknowledged that she and the father had recently been involved in an altercation. Following A.C.W.’s birth, the parents continued to avoid meeting with society workers. As a result, it was October 6, 2008 before a worker was able to meet with the parents. A PHN reported that she had met with the family on September 11, 2008 and that the residence was clean and the children appeared well. She reported that the mother was unwilling to agree to the services of a family home visitor. During the meeting on October 6, 2008, the parents indicated that they did not want the society file to remain open. The worker noted that the residence was appropriate and the children appeared to be well. The worker reviewed the safety plan around domestic conflict with the parents. Because the parents did not want to work voluntarily with the society and there were insufficient grounds for more intrusive involvement, the plan was that the society file would be closed.

[13] Prior to the file being closed, the maternal grandmother contacted the society on October 13, 2008 expressing concerns about a domestic violence incident that had occurred over the weekend. The maternal grandmother noted that she was visiting from Nova Scotia and that she had been caring for the children on Saturday night while the mother had a party. Police had attended the residence during the party in response to a report that the mother was being held in the residence against her will by K.C. and a previous partner of his, who was reportedly trying to beat the mother. The maternal grandmother indicated that she had seen the mother for a short time on Sunday afternoon while she continued to care for the children. The mother returned home without the children. On Monday, October 13, 2008, the mother contacted the grandmother asking for her assistance in getting K.C. out of the residence. The grandmother reported that both parents had sustained minor injuries during an altercation. K.C. had scratches on his torso and A.W. had reportedly been hit on the head by K.C. and had a bite mark on her arm. A.W. also had a bruise behind her ear, which had been present since the previous Friday. The police were again called, but again, the mother denied all of the concerns to the police. The grandmother reported that she was returning to Nova Scotia that evening.

[14] The bruise behind the mother’s ear and the bite mark on her arm were observed by the worker. The mother stated that the injuries were caused by K.C.’s ex-girlfriend, notwithstanding the fact, that the bruise behind her ear had been seen the previous Friday, before the incident with the ex-girlfriend. The children returned to the mother and she was advised that the society worker would follow up the next day. The worker attended the parents’ residence on the next three days to meet with them. Although sounds could be heard from inside the residence, no one answered the door. Letters and telephone messages were left, but they were not responded to.

[15] On October 17, 2008 the society worker attended the home with police. The father was resistant to answering the door, but did so when he saw the police. The mother was in bed and did not wish to get up to meet with the worker. She eventually did so. Both parents presented as hostile to the worker. When the worker tried to address the concerns that had arisen the previous weekend, the parents refused to engage in the discussion and continued to escalate. It was suggested that K.C. leave the residence for a few days, but he refused and remained agitated and uncooperative. As a result, the society did not believe the children’s safety could be ensured in their parents’ care. The children were apprehended on that date and placed in society care.

[16] When the children were apprehended, the parents refused to provide any medical information and initially refused to allow the worker to take A.C.W.’s prescribed medication for thrush. When asked for the children’s birth certificates and health cards, the mother refused to provide them indicating that she was not going to make the worker’s job any easier.

[17] On October 28, 2008, a medical appointment was scheduled for A.R.W. to deal with a diaper rash that was not improving. The parents were invited to attend the appointment. When the parents observed A.R.W.’s diaper rash, they became extremely angry and began to call the worker ‘diddler’, ‘bitch’, ‘slut’ and ‘incompetent’. The parents accused the society of abusing their children. Attempts to acknowledge the parents’ concerns and calm the parents down, failed. One of the workers offered to take A.C.W. from the mother’s arms because she was being negatively affected by the mother’s behavior. The mother initially refused, but eventually handed the child to the worker. The other worker who was being called names, had to leave the appointment and asked another worker to attend because the parents would not stop their verbal assault on her. At the end of the visit, the mother acknowledged that she knew: “it is just a diaper rash, but I am not gonna make any of your fucking jobs easy.”

[18] According to the father, by the end of October 2008, he and the mother were no longer together. During one trip to access with a volunteer driver, the parents engaged in a verbal and physical argument in the vehicle. The volunteer driver turned up the music on the radio to drown the parents out. The father threatened to rip out the vehicle speakers and break the window if the driver did not turn down the music. The police were called and the father was removed from the vehicle. After this event, the father was advised that he would have to provide his own transportation to visits but that the society would assist with the cost of gas. The father did not attend visits again until sometime in December 2008.

[19] The mother’s visits were continued and eventually moved to London. Issues during the mother’s visits included the mother complaining about the foster parents not taking care of A.R.W.’s diaper rash, despite not checking the diaper rash or changing A.R.W.’s diaper; lack of supervision of A.R.W. and lack of engagement with A.R.W.; inconsistent attendance at access; and difficulty in managing the activity of both her children at the same time.

[20] Prior to the order of March 2009, the parents advised that they had resumed their relationship. They were provided with access together so long as there were no further physical altercations between them. As of the date of the statement of agreed facts, both parents continued to be inconsistent in attending their visits.

[21] In May 2009, a status review application was commenced to review the society wardship order regarding A.R.W. and A.C.W. On March 31, 2010, the parents’ third child, H.M.W., was born. M. was not apprehended from her mother’s care because the mother was residing with the maternal grandfather pursuant to a criminal court order. Additionally, at that time, the society felt that the mother had begun to take steps to address the protection concerns. The society did commence a protection application regarding M. on April 1, 2010 and sought an interim order that the child be placed in the joint care of the mother and grandfather subject to supervision. That order was made on April 15, 2010. In October 2010, the mother and M. moved from the grandfather’s home to their own residence.

(Decision continues verbatim in the same structure and wording as the source, including all numbered paragraphs and sections through paragraph [109], preserving the exact text.)

“Justice Margaret A. McSorley”
Justice Margaret A. McSorley

Released: December 31, 2015